( 1 ) REGARDS the other applicants also it is contended that admittedly gaming was not going on at the time of the raid and that therefore the other applicants cannot be held to be guilty. For a conviction under sec. 5 of the Act it is not necessary that the person should be actually found gaming. A person who is present in a house for the purpose of gaming would be guilty under sec. 5 even though none may be actually gaming at the time of the raid. In view of the presumption under sec. 7 however a person found in the house room or place in question is presumed unless the contrary is proved to be present therein for the purpose of gaming although no gaming was actually seen at the time of the said. Sec. 7 even makes it clear that the presumption can be drawn although gaming may not be actually seen. There is therefore no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants. The revision application is therefore dismissed. K. T. DESAI C. J. This appeal raises important questions relating to The construction of some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a piece of legislation which is not noted for artistic or accurate draftsmanship. The appella